100 greatest lead singers of vocal groups

[StuBass1]

Hey Stubass1
You are on the money..I think the people didn't read the Criteria on this list.These lead singers were chosen and ranked based upon the popularity of the songs they sang lead on, their influence on other lead singers, their uniqueness and level of innovation, their longevity, and the importance of their lead singing as a part of their group's overall sound. Only singers who led secular groups were considered for this list.
Please consider the statement above....I can understand the list.Some had bigger records ,some had worldwide records over other artists in the same gene. I do understand this list..yes a few can be changed ,However remember the Criteria......

Yeah PianoMD...it really comes down to the criteria. There is certainly room for disagreement, even based on the criteria since this is not. an exact science...additions, deletions, and placement, but some folks ignore the criteria and disagree based on personal preference. Personal preference is a different list. I often have this discussion on bass players where my personal favorites my differ [[somewhat) to whom I believe are the "greatest" based on solid criteria.

[StuBass1]

Michael Jackson is way too low on this list.

Once again, a justified argument I suppose, however, while The Jackson 5 as a group may be much greater than The Teenagers for instance, as a group lead singer, I'd have to rank Michael well below Frankie Lymon based on this criteria. As a solo artist, obviously Michael beats Lymon by a significant margin, but as a lead singer...the nod would have to go to Frankie based on the criteria.

[RossHolloway]

Once again, a justified argument I suppose, however, while The Jackson 5 as a group may be much greater than The Teenagers for instance, as a group lead singer, I'd have to rank Michael well below Frankie Lymon based on this criteria. As a solo artist, obviously Michael beats Lymon by a significant margin, but as a lead singer...the nod would have to go to Frankie based on the criteria.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on Michael vs. Frankie. What crieteria do you base your argument that Frankie was a better lead singer than Michael? Based on the articles criteria, Michael still beats Frankie by a long shot.

[StuBass1]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on Michael vs. Frankie. What crieteria do you base your argument that Frankie was a better lead singer than Michael? Based on the articles criteria, Michael still beats Frankie by a long shot.

Fair question Ross...

First I'd have to say that Frankie was the FIRST, and influenced virtually all the "kid" singers [[including Michael) who came along later. Frankie WAS the group. The Jackson 4 [[without Michael) could have had success in the industry, while The Teenagers without Frankie would have been nothing. Michael was certainly cute as a kid lead singer, but so far as vocal quality...especially in Michaels early days, and despite his obvious talent and emerging musicality, Frankies vocal performance...clarity, tone, range, etc were highly superior to Michaels IMO, and Frankie didn't have nearly the advantages of material, production, promotion,and engineering that Michael enjoyed.

Frankie was an adult [[musically) in a kids body. Michael was a kid imitating adult singers...

[RossHolloway]

Fair question Ross...

First I'd have to say that Frankie was the FIRST, and influenced virtually all the "kid" singers [[including Michael) who came along later. Frankie WAS the group. The Jackson 4 [[without Michael) could have had success in the industry, while The Teenagers without Frankie would have been nothing. Michael was certainly cute as a kid lead singer, but so far as vocal quality...especially in Michaels early days, and despite his obvious talent and emerging musicality, Frankies vocal performance...clarity, tone, range, etc were highly superior to Michaels IMO, and Frankie didn't have nearly the advantages of material, production, promotion,and engineering that Michael enjoyed.

Frankie was an adult [[musically) in a kids body. Michael was a kid imitating adult singers...

For argument sake, let's just say that Frankie was the most influential "kid" singer from the time that Why Do Fools Fall In Love hit in 1956 up until say 1969 when the Jackson 5 released I Want You Back. For the past 40+ years, you'd have to agree that Michael Jackson is now the standard bearer for young singers and has surpassed Frankie in that aspect. And that time frame is being very generous to the influence of Frankie.. And I think Michael was way more than just a cute kid lead singer. Michael was more of an old soul is his singing style and definitely had a mature way of singing and performing. Regardless of what one may say about the difference in promotion, song quality, production or engineering, Michael is the ultimate measuring stick. After listening to several clips of Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers on Youtube this afternoon, Frankie had nothing over Michael Jackson in the vocal department. Nothing. Frankie was a fine singer, but he was no Michael Jackson.

And again, I'd have to disagree with you over the whole Jackson vs the Teenagers. I don't think too many people would agree with you that the Jacksons would have been as successful without Michael during their early Motown years. While the Jackson 5 were a package, I can't imagine how things would have turned out for them if Michael had not been their lead singer. And take away the Teenagers biggest hit, WDFFIL, I don't know how much they would have stood out with or with out Frankie.

[StuBass1]

Well I suppose that's why they call them opinions Ross, and even the most sincere attempts at objectivity, a certain level of subjectivity will creep in. As for Michaels impressive 40 + year career, only a relatively few of those years featured Michael as the lead singer of The Jackson 5...a period where Michaels voice was far from fully developed, and those are the only years that count so far as this topic is concerned. Actually, for the sake of this discussion I could voice the same concern that I did regarding Brian Wilson and Mike Love being on the list...that The J 5 were perhaps more of a band than a singing group since they played instruments too, but that said, I still believe that Frankie Lymon was far superior as a young vocalist than Michael during the J5 period, but I fully respect your opinion.

[RossHolloway]

Well I suppose that's why they call them opinions Ross, and even the most sincere attempts at objectivity, a certain level of subjectivity will creep in. As for Michaels impressive 40 + year career, only a relatively few of those years featured Michael as the lead singer of The Jackson 5...a period where Michaels voice was far from fully developed, and those are the only years that count so far as this topic is concerned. Actually, for the sake of this discussion I could voice the same concern that I did regarding Brian Wilson and Mike Love being on the list...that The J 5 were perhaps more of a band than a singing group since they played instruments too, but that said, I still believe that Frankie Lymon was far superior as a young vocalist than Michael during the J5 period, but I fully respect your opinion.

StuBass, I actually appreciate the dialogue and discussion and the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable". The truth is I always find these polls/list pointless. Do they ever influence anyones listening pleasure or what groups you like or dislike? Fact is there are some groups that I will never enjoy listening to no matter how many polls they top or how often I'm told they're the greatest at everything*cough**beatles**cough*.

[StuBass1]

It's all good Ross. What I find the primary benefit of these discussions to be is often to remind us of some of the great artists who weilded so much influence in popular culture. Personal favorites are yet another matter...

[heikki]

Hi!

When I'm conducting interviews with the members of classic soul groups today, surprisingly many name Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers as one of their idols. They were highly esteemed back in the day and made a big impact.

Best regards
Heikki

[RossHolloway]

Hi!

When I'm conducting interviews with the members of classic soul groups today, surprisingly many name Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers as one of their idols. They were highly esteemed back in the day and made a big impact.

Best regards
Heikki

Through the years I've head that as well about Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers. I guess if you were an aspiring singer of the late 1950's or early 1960's then Frankie influenced a lot of singers. If you were a young singer who came along after 1969 and up thru today then Michael Jackson was more visible and influential. Both were great in their own right.

Out of curiosity Heikki what classic soul groups have you interviewed? And where can we read or listen to those interviews?

[heikki]

Hi RossHolloway!

I agree with you. My point was that today we don't always realise the impact Frankie had those days.

As some forum members know, throughout the years I've done multi-part stories on many groups by interviewing each current and ex-member, producers, writers and other related people. So far I've covered at least the Dells, the Dramatics, the Spinners, Fantastic Four, the Originals - which all are available only in our printed papers - and the Masqueraders, the Tymes, the Soul Children and the Manhattans, which can be found on our website at
http://www.soulexpress.net

Best regards
Heikki

[RossHolloway]

Thanks Heikki. That's an interesting site.